Supreme Court Approves Strip Searches For Any Arrestable Offense

sl4shd0rk writes "Taking a page out of the TSA handbook, the Supreme Court has voted to allow strip searches for any offense, no matter how minimal. The article cites these two tidbits from Justice Anthony Kennedy: 'Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,' and 'Maintaining safety and order at detention centers requires the expertise of correctional officials.'"

Comments

Re:This seems reasonable

[silas_moeckel]

This has nothing to do with being convicted of a crime, this could be somebody brought to jail for speeding. The funny part is the feds and many states already ban this practice the could just said it's allowable. States are still free to ban the practice.

Re:This seems reasonable

[mjr167]

Been to Virginia lately

Re:This seems terrifying

[Col. Klink (retired)]

This case was about a man who was suspected of having unpaid fines. He had, in fact, already paid the fines and had the documentation to prove it with him at the time of his arrest.

Re:This seems reasonable

[MimeticLie]

I'm not sure what people have against someone who, remember, has already been convicted of a crime, to have to endure special screening before incarceration.

Arrest != conviction. The man in question was wrongfully arrested (for a fine that he had already paid). On the radio this morning they were also talking about strip searches for offenses such as riding a bike without an audible bell and walking a dog without a leash.

The worst thing about this ruling is that it provides police with yet another way to silence people who are inconvenient. Protesters, people who record video of police brutality, and anyone else are now at risk of punitive strip searches. The only sliver of hope in this ruling is that it doesn't overturn existing laws that prohibit strip searches in minor cases. We'll just have to see if legislators try to dismantle those in the next wave of "tough on crime" election year bullshit.

Re:Canada Here I Come

[Hatta]

No, that's not the case at all. Jail is not prison. If you're arrested for any reason, you end up in jail until you get bailed out. It doesn't matter how frivolous the charges are.

Essentially this ruling means that any police officer can take you and have you strip searched for any reason whatsoever (let's say you're arrested for resisting arrest) and you have no recourse. That's the country we live in today.

Re:This seems terrifying

[Raul654]

It's even worse than that.

Not only had he paid the fine, and not only did he show the officer a sealed letter from the state saying he had paid it, but having an unpaid fine is not an arrestable offense (in New Jersey, where this all happened)

Re:Canada Here I Come

[Anonymous Coward]

Or (according to the facts of the case that brought us this ruling), you are arrested for failing to pay a fine which you had already paid, even though you had proof of that payment, and showed it to the officer *before* you were arrested. In that case, you'll be arrested, kept in a cell for upwards of a week, and strip-searched *TWICE*.

I left and it's easy to do

[acidfast7]

I left the US to work in Europe because I was very tired of the crappy politics, lack of a social system and erosion of personal rights. This story is perfect example. In certain countries (e.g. Denmark) you don't even need employment for a resident permit. All one needs is 100 points on the new system shown here:

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/work/greencard-scheme/greencard-scheme.htm

A PhD from a reasonable university gives 95 points. Speaking English is worth 20 points. Being under 35 helps as well. As does being in a technical field (e.g. IT).

It's not so hard to leave, so quit calling bullshit on those that have/plan to.

Re:I left and it's easy to do

[sandytaru]

If you read the actual case that caused this, it wasn't an inmate who was strip searched, it was someone who was mistakenly arrested for failure to pay a fine that he'd already paid and had PROOF that he paid. He was detained illegally for 6 days because no one believed his perfectly valid receipt, and during that time he was strip searched not once, but twice. To me, it smacks of totally ignoring "innocent until proven guilty" in favor of "we know you're innocent of the crime we arrested you for so we're going to try to find something else you're guilty of instead."

Re:Canada Here I Come

[johnjaydk]

We're getting ready to head into a presidential election where the "left" is actually center and the "right" is actually "holy fucking shit I didn't know the scale went this far".

Best political analysis ever.

Re:This seems terrifying

[AngryDeuce]

It seems to me there's no such thing as a "not arrestable offense" anymore.

Simply requesting a complaint form at your local police station can result in an arrest these days, as fucked up and horrifying that is.

Re:Canada Here I Come

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Right up until you piss off the $cientologists, or the Mormons, or the Muslims, by saying something about their "prophet" that they interpret as derogatory (which you may well have intended as same) and they start to sue and harass you in court for "hate speech."

Please cite for us a single case where the Mormon Church has sued anyone in court for hate speech directed at them.

As a Mormon, I can tell you that the official Church policy to dealing with anti-Mormon hate speech is to ignore it. Haters have been spouting their vitriol at us for 200 years and haven't had an original insult to throw at us for 199 years. They're inevitably forgotten, while the Church just keeps doing its thing. There's just no point in getting into an argument with such people.

Re:Canada Here I Come

[icebraining]

Sorry, but some do. Cheering on the death of the uninsured was well demonstrated in the GOP debate (link). Are they all exceptions? Not likely.

Re:Canada Here I Come

[bjdevil66]

While the rest of your post rings true...

Right up until you piss off the... Mormons... by saying something about their "prophet" that they interpret as derogatory (which you may well have intended as same) and they start to sue and harass you in court for "hate speech."

I can't speak for $cientologists or Muslims, but I am LDS - and I call BS on your accusation that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - or individual members of the church - is suing anyone for "hate speech".

Can you cite an actual lawsuit (that doesn't involve what most non-Mormon Slashdot readers would say is real hate speech, and is just a form of tyrannical suppression of the freedom of expression)?

Re:This seems terrifying

[canajin56]

By itself, Jaywalking isn't an arrestable offense.

In 2006 the concept of arrestable vs. non-arrestable offenses was abolished in the USA. They are now grouped as "indictable" and "summary" offenses. If you are caught performing a summary offense (like jaywalking, or any traffic violation), the officer has the option of issuing a citation immediately, or arresting you, strip searching you, holding you in jail for up to 48 hours, then bringing you before a judge and having the judge write you a citation. At this point they can either continue to hold you until you pay the fine, or release you if the judge trusts you to pay up.

Re:Canada Here I Come

[Esteanil]

If you've got any kind of advanced degree, I'm pretty sure we can put you to use. Engineers especially are highly sought after in Norway these days - as are IT people.

Just apply for a few jobs and within a few months you'll have a work visa on our "specialist import quota".